Larsen opened the discussions with a statement that might best capture the complicated nature of privacy amidst our increasingly digital and interconnected world: “Privacy is a collective good. Thinking about the perils that privacy faces right now requires us to think about privacy as a democratic good.” The principle is especially critical of the framework often used to analyze privacy – one that isolates issues as strictly individual-based cases (think consent forms, website cookie policy notifications). Larsen’s suggestion is to look at privacy with a holistic perspective and to see how privacy rights have implications not only to an individual, but to many other agents that may either be directly or indirectly involved.

He then put forward two concepts he deemed to be main pillars of the current state of privacy: Surveillance Capitalism as discussed in Shoshana Zuboff’s new book and Bernard E. Harcourt’s study on the Expository Society.

“Privacy is a collective good. Thinking about the perils that privacy faces right now requires us to think about privacy as a democratic good.”

– Mike Larsen

The two ideas were both entirely unsurprising, yet undeniably unsettling. While the monetization of data has become fairly well-known (and seemingly accepted), Larsen disputed the belief that the collection of our digital footprint is dedicated solely to economic means like marketing and advertising. I heard noticeable gasps from around the audience when he delved into the other side of surveillance, the one we don’t talk about enough: prediction of behaviour, political sentiment, and voting practices – and information such as these can open the possibility for the steering and manipulation of the public.

Micheal Vonn (left) of the BCCLA and Mike Larsen (right) of BC FIPA discusses the complicated state of privacy amidst an increasingly digital and interconnected society.

Although the
discussion on the Expository Society veered towards a more academic vernacular,
the subject in its most basic nutshell did hit close to home. It is essentially
a critique on how the digital age and the dawn of social media have changed our
habits, how we have become more incentivized and inclined to share personal
information in public spaces, which in turn builds copious amounts of
vulnerable data.

The concern
about the safety of our data was a sentiment that Vonn echoed in her
discussion, stating that we create more data than most places, but
unfortunately, “we can’t really protect it.” Vonn also delved into sovereignty
and transparency, citing the lack of ability to hold government bodies
accountable, relative to the amount of access government has to our personal
information. As for tips and solutions, Vonn proposed a tactic she admittedly
described as unpopular – go analog. A self-confessed Luddite, Vonn spoke of the
security measures created by simply leaving devices like laptops (and yes, even
phones) at home when travelling or crossing the US-Canada border.

Although we
only celebrate Data Privacy Day once a year, the discussion it generates allow
for issues surrounding data, surveillance, and privacy to permeate our general
discourse. And while the meaningful action that we seek can come so few and far
between, these discussions do represent a small victory. At the end of the day,
we want as many people talking and caring about these issues. After all,
privacy is a collective good.